Off Duty Officer tells Citizen " Rights Don't Matter "

[MP]

Although, his statement may be incorrect or poorly worded, I agree she should not been "strapped" during a rally.  I have no problem with open or concealed carry but I, too, would not be comfortable with an open firearm in a large group of people protesting anything.  There is a time and a place and this was not it.

I disagree. There is no time and place where you should not carry. I have a right to protect myself anywhere.

I agree, but how does carrying an UNLOADED gun protect you?  I want mine full of bullets!

MP

[fudgie]

Although, his statement may be incorrect or poorly worded, I agree she should not been "strapped" during a rally.  I have no problem with open or concealed carry but I, too, would not be comfortable with an open firearm in a large group of people protesting anything.  There is a time and a place and this was not it.

I disagree. There is no time and place where you should not carry. I have a right to protect myself anywhere.

I agree, but how does carrying an UNLOADED gun protect you?  I want mine full of bullets!

MP

Well thats Cali for ya! You can carry your mags on your belt also. Gun just has to be unloaded.

[fudgie]

I always vote the 2'nd amendment first, and will again. I'd really like to get the chance before I die of voting for someone I really believe in though.

There is a guy running for congress or something up in my neck of the State. A commercial spoke of him being pro 2A. Went on to say he has a lifetime CCW permit. I was like huh? Ind dont have a CCW permit! We only have a LTCH. So he wont get my vote if he does not even know what lisc Ind has or issues.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I always vote the 2'nd amendment first, and will again. I'd really like to get the chance before I die of voting for someone I really believe in though.

There is a guy running for congress or something up in my neck of the State. A commercial spoke of him being pro 2A. Went on to say he has a lifetime CCW permit. I was like huh? Ind dont have a CCW permit! We only have a LTCH. So he wont get my vote if he does not even know what lisc Ind has or issues.

I got mail from 3 different 2'nd amendment groups yesterday, one I'd never heard of reminding me that Luger is not our friend. I don't think he's ever seen a new gun regulation he didn't like.

[fudgie]

I always vote the 2'nd amendment first, and will again. I'd really like to get the chance before I die of voting for someone I really believe in though.

There is a guy running for congress or something up in my neck of the State. A commercial spoke of him being pro 2A. Went on to say he has a lifetime CCW permit. I was like huh? Ind dont have a CCW permit! We only have a LTCH. So he wont get my vote if he does not even know what lisc Ind has or issues.

I got mail from 3 different 2'nd amendment groups yesterday, one I'd never heard of reminding me that Luger is not our friend. I don't think he's ever seen a new gun regulation he didn't like.

Yea Lugar is not doing so hot up here. I think most up this way are wanting to get the carrer politicians out. I was not a fan of Daniels when he got in but changed my mind when I found out he rides.  He has done alot for us 2A'ers

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I always vote the 2'nd amendment first, and will again. I'd really like to get the chance before I die of voting for someone I really believe in though.

There is a guy running for congress or something up in my neck of the State. A commercial spoke of him being pro 2A. Went on to say he has a lifetime CCW permit. I was like huh? Ind dont have a CCW permit! We only have a LTCH. So he wont get my vote if he does not even know what lisc Ind has or issues.

I got mail from 3 different 2'nd amendment groups yesterday, one I'd never heard of reminding me that Luger is not our friend. I don't think he's ever seen a new gun regulation he didn't like.

Yea Lugar is not doing so hot up here. I think most up this way are wanting to get the carrer politicians out. I was not a fan of Daniels when he got in but changed my mind when I found out he rides.  He has done alot for us 2A'ers

I agree.

[ptgb]

jer0177 PM'ed me a few days ago and asked me what my opinion was when I posted here about rebuttal to the article he cited. I decided to post my response to that PM here as well... for what it's worth.

Flame suit on...

I could write a LLLOOOONNNGGG rebuttal to just about everything he says, but trust me, you don't want to hear it.

I do want to hear it - I want both sides of the story.  I have read the entire story as well, and without anything to counter it, it makes sense to me.

First, in reference to his story and why I think it's bunk...

What he is advocating is not "defending" the Constitution, but defending his interpretation of the Constitution. He goes on many tangents in talking about why this or that is wrong and contrary to what the meaning of the Constitution is, but it is from his perspective.

This is what so great about that document; probably one of the greatest documents ever written. The greatness lies in the fact that it is a living, breathing document. The meaning of the Constitution is constantly changing and evolving; whether or not you agree with those changes or not, it is what makes our system of government the best system in history.

Interpretation of what our founding fathers wrote was built into our system, by those same men. Now mind you, whatever way the political winds are blowing at the time has a huge effect on that interpretation, but it is not up to the common man, singularly, to decide those things. If it was, could you imagine what type of system would be in place?

Like it or not, the system is built around men and women in black robes who try and decide for all of us what the founders were applying to the everyday lives of the citizenry. As this country evolves and the cultural attitudes change with this evolution, the Supreme Court along with judges much lower down the line have to reconcile these cultural changes in this country since the 1700's... not an enviable task.

There will always be individuals and groups who vehemently disagree with the current interpretations made, but there will that many who also agree with them. It's the way the system is built.

A police officer, prosecutor, judge, etc, all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath is to uphold and defend the current interpretations of that ever changing document. Many times those same people don't agree with it, in current form, but as it is the law of the land, that defense is what's imperative.

But the people still have the power to change the things that they disagree with. They can do it in many ways, from the voting booth, from the courtroom, from the streets, from the computer keyboard, and even with a pen.

As a "boot on the ground", I do not have the luxury of making broad based decisions as to what the founding fathers meant 200+ years ago. I, and the others must uphold the law (as currently written), intervene in crises (large and small), and maintain order in an increasingly orderless society. And after twenty years, I am proud to say I, and mostly everyone else I know in the same business, do their absolute best to try and do that everyday. I would like to say it all works out and everybody is happy, but that rarely occurs. Somebody isn't going to be happy; that's just the way it is.

There is a law in Youngstown that says it is illegal to run out of gas (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/ohio?page=20).  Really?  Someone can be arrested or cited for running out of gas?  

How are "Immigration checkpoints" (and DUI checkpoints for that matter) allowed under the 4th amendment?  Seems like unreasonable search to me.  Reminiscent of "show me your papers" from Germany in the 1930's.  

How about the 8th amendment?  How does labeling someone a criminal for life after they've "paid their debt to society" not come across as cruel punishment when it will prevent them from ever leading a normal life again?

Red light cameras?  What about the right to face your accuser?

I don't see it from a law officer's perspective, but to me, this country has turned into a country that is trying to control everything I do, think, see, say and hear, and I don't like it.

In all of those examples and statements, you are basing your questions and opinions on your interpretation of the original intent of the founding fathers and the original document. Like it or not, you don't have that power. Even the cops don't have that power; they can only uphold the laws as they are currently written (based on case law). In a perfect world I could research and discern the intent of the founding fathers, the Supreme Court, and appeals courts throughout the U.S. That is not realistic. At 3 a.m., in the middle of the street when we are in the middle of situation that requires immediate action by police, we can only hope to be adept of the current framework of laws (and their intent), policies, procedures, and the like... and do the best we can.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I've got to disagree concerning the living Constitution concept. I've also got to disagree about "common people" not having the ability to interpret it.

This is a little of what Jefferson had to say about the subject.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408


Our Constitution was written with the intent of being "understood and understandable by everyone". Interpreting it as a living document, flapping here and there as "the winds of pop culture" dictates is the "road to dictatorship and hell".

Might I also add that the intention of the Founders in including the 2'nd Amendment seems obvious from their writings. It's there as a "reset button". So that, if all else fails, We The People, will always retain the ability to take over and start over if necessary.

The 2'nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's not even primarily about defense from civilian criminals. The concept was revolutionary when it was written and it's revolutionary now. The idea is that the ultimate power, both by vote and by arms resides with "The People".

As long as "We The People" retain that right we are virtually guaranteed to never need it. And, if we lose that right, we are virtually guaranteed to need it.

[ptgb]

I've got to disagree concerning the living Constitution concept. I've also got to disagree about "common people" not having the ability to interpret it.

Our Constitution was written with the intent of being "understood and understandable by everyone". Interpreting it as a living document, flapping here and there as "the winds of pop culture" dictates is the "road to dictatorship and hell".

Actually your statement above reinforces what I was trying to get across. The Constitution has always been subject to interception, even during the time that the men who wrote it were still alive.

Our system is set up to prevent "the winds of pop culture" from intrinsically changing the document; first too quickly. Why do you think it takes years for things to get through the appellate system? Secondly, the foundation of case law is that the judges/justices must look to the past in an attempt to interpret the original intent of the founding fathers, along with all those who made interpretations before them. Right or wrong that is how the system has always been.

Might I also add that the intention of the Founders in including the 2'nd Amendment seems obvious from their writings. It's there as a "reset button". So that, if all else fails, We The People, will always retain the ability to take over and start over if necessary.

The 2'nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's not even primarily about defense from civilian criminals. The concept was revolutionary when it was written and it's revolutionary now. The idea is that the ultimate power, both by vote and by arms resides with "The People".

As long as "We The People" retain that right we are virtually guaranteed to never need it. And, if we lose that right, we are virtually guaranteed to need it.

My opinions here are broad-based, I'm not going to dwell into specific sections (not on this board) - ESPECIALLY the 2nd Amendment. My flame suit does fires, not blast furnaces  

[The Anvil]

I've got to disagree concerning the living Constitution concept. I've also got to disagree about "common people" not having the ability to interpret it.

Our Constitution was written with the intent of being "understood and understandable by everyone". Interpreting it as a living document, flapping here and there as "the winds of pop culture" dictates is the "road to dictatorship and hell".

Actually your statement above reinforces what I was trying to get across. The Constitution has always been subject to interception, even during the time that the men who wrote it were still alive.

Our system is set up to prevent "the winds of pop culture" from intrinsically changing the document; first too quickly. Why do you think it takes years for things to get through the appellate system? Secondly, the foundation of case law is that the judges/justices must look to the past in an attempt to interpret the original intent of the founding fathers, along with all those who made interpretations before them. Right or wrong that is how the system has always been.

Might I also add that the intention of the Founders in including the 2'nd Amendment seems obvious from their writings. It's there as a "reset button". So that, if all else fails, We The People, will always retain the ability to take over and start over if necessary.

The 2'nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's not even primarily about defense from civilian criminals. The concept was revolutionary when it was written and it's revolutionary now. The idea is that the ultimate power, both by vote and by arms resides with "The People".

As long as "We The People" retain that right we are virtually guaranteed to never need it. And, if we lose that right, we are virtually guaranteed to need it.

My opinions here are broad-based, I'm not going to dwell into specific sections (not on this board) - ESPECIALLY the 2nd Amendment. My flame suit does fires, not blast furnaces  

Furthermore, the Constitution is only relevant if the people make it relevant. The document itself enforces nothing. It works through us and if the majority of Americans were to decide that it's antiquated and obsolete and should be tossed out altogether then the document has no say in the matter because it's just an inanimate object.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I've only heard the "living document" concept being used when someone feels there is an American Civil Right or freedom which the person feels Americans are no longer competent to wield, or, that they would just rather we no longer had, but which the constitution guarantees.

I could well be unaware of other reasons for this concept. Perhaps someone feels there are more freedoms we should have, but our constitution, as written, is preventing us from enjoying? If that's the case, if the "living document" concept is designed to guarantee all of our present freedoms and to win us other freedoms our founders didn't think of then I'd like to be educated as to what those freedoms are?

Anvil is right, the constitution is our "master law", the one which was put there to protect the peoples freedom. It's not a document designed to give the government power, it's master guideline designed to limit the governments power and maximize the citizens power. If the "powers that be" are allowed to ignore it, it will no longer be relevant and we will no longer be "America".

[Chrisj CMA]

The 2'nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's not even primarily about defense from civilian criminals. The concept was revolutionary when it was written and it's revolutionary now. The idea is that the ultimate power, both by vote and by arms resides with "The People".

As long as "We The People" retain that right we are virtually guaranteed to never need it. And, if we lose that right, we are virtually guaranteed to need it.

More true words I have not heard spoken (or typed) in a long long time 

[ptgb]

...I could well be unaware of other reasons for this concept. Perhaps someone feels there are more freedoms we should have, but our constitution, as written, is preventing us from enjoying? If that's the case, if the "living document" concept is designed to guarantee all of our present freedoms and to win us other freedoms our founders didn't think of then I'd like to be educated as to what those freedoms are?...

That has happened exactly 17 times in the last 200+ years.. after the original 10.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

...I could well be unaware of other reasons for this concept. Perhaps someone feels there are more freedoms we should have, but our constitution, as written, is preventing us from enjoying? If that's the case, if the "living document" concept is designed to guarantee all of our present freedoms and to win us other freedoms our founders didn't think of then I'd like to be educated as to what those freedoms are?...

That has happened exactly 17 times in the last 200+ years.. after the original 10.

I misunderstood your meaning concerning "living document". Very true. 

[jer0177]

...I could well be unaware of other reasons for this concept. Perhaps someone feels there are more freedoms we should have, but our constitution, as written, is preventing us from enjoying? If that's the case, if the "living document" concept is designed to guarantee all of our present freedoms and to win us other freedoms our founders didn't think of then I'd like to be educated as to what those freedoms are?...

That has happened exactly 17 times in the last 200+ years.. after the original 10.

Well, almost 17.

Amendment XI

(Ratified February 7, 1795)

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. (takes power away from people)

Amendment XII

(Ratified June 15, 1804)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.  (takes power away from people)

Amendment XIII

(Ratified December 6, 1865)

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV

(Ratified July 9, 1868)
Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave. But all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV

(Ratified February 3, 1870)
Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVI

(Ratified February 3, 1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment XVII

(Ratified April 8, 1913)

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment XVIII

(Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed December 5, 1933 with the Ratification of Amendment XXI)

Section 1

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2

The Congress and all of the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. (takes power away from people, although repealed.)

Amendment XIX

(Ratified August 18, 1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XX

(Ratified January 23, 1933)

Section 1

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment XXI

(Ratified December 5, 1933)

Section 1

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3

The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

(give some power back to the people, but still holds a federal limitation on transportation or importation)

Amendment XXII

(Ratified February 27, 1951)

Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. (Limits powers originally not restricted)

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Amendment XXIII

(Ratified March 19, 1961)

Section 1

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIV

(Ratified January 23, 1964)

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXV

(Ratified February 10, 1967)

Section 1

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI

(Ratified July 1, 1971)

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVII

(Ratified May 5, 1992)

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

So, counting up the ones that don't restrict the power of the people further, I count 12, and that's not to say that those 12 grant power to the people - some of them just define ambiguity that existed prior to their ratification.   

Another thing I find interesting, as this is the first time I've read these in their full text, is that several of the "last 17" include the verbiage: "Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation.", while that text appears nowhere in the original 12 articles or 10 amendments.

[B]

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

Best I can tell... Carrying in CA can get you 2-5.
It's unfortunate we don't have a true federal standard.

[fudgie]

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

Best I can tell... Carrying in CA can get you 2-5.
It's unfortunate we don't have a true federal standard.

I think it just changed in Jan.

[B]

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

Best I can tell... Carrying in CA can get you 2-5.
It's unfortunate we don't have a true federal standard.

I think it just changed in Jan.

It def got worse.